[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Why would they do this? Why would they go out of their way to protect a Senator who has demonstrated a repeated hostility to the Second Amendment in his votes and his leadership?

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Well, I thought perhaps the NRA carveout in the DISCLOSE Act might be the answer. But, there is more. It turns out, Reid secured a $61 million earmark for a gun range in Clark County, Nevada.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]At 3:25, you can hear LaPierre touting Reid’s record on guns saying, “I also want to thank you, Senator, for your support every day for the Second Amendment and for the rights of American gun owners. “

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]The American Rifleman article also commends Reid’s Second Amendment record noting, “His dedication to this project is just one of the ways Sen. Reid has demonstrated his support for gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Well, that’s all very nice. What politician representing a pro-gun red state wouldn’t want Wayne LaPierre to come out for a personal photo op at their earmark ribbon cutting.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]But, here is the problem. Reid has not supported the Second Amendment “every day.” Or ever.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Reid has a lifetime rating of “F” from Gun Owners of America (who Ron Paul once called “the only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington”). GOA is actively supporting the 100% pro-gun Republican nominee, Sharron Angle, in her campaign to unseat Harry Reid.
[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]But if you don’t believe GOA, see for yourself below the fold. Then call (800) 392-VOTE (8683) before it is too late and make the NRA knows they’d be betraying second amendment voters by endorsing Harry Reid.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Below are just a few of the votes that demonstrate Reid’s longstanding hostility to guns and the Second Amendment. Not included in this list is the long list of consistent and active support for anti-gun nominees to the Federal Judiciary and to high level cabinet posts. The reason I did not include anti-gun nominees is because he supported every last one of them.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]March 2, 2000. Vote 28. Voted to say that school violence was due to the fact that Congress “failed to pass reasonable, common-sense gun control measures” and call for new gun ownership restrictions on the anniversary of the Columbine shootings (reconsideration of vote 27).

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]March 2, 2000. Vote 32. Voted to use Federal taxpayer funds to hand out anti-gun literature in schools and to run anti-gun public service announcements.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]April 6, 2000. Vote 64. Voted for a gun control package including new onerous restrictions on gun shows.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]April 7, 2000. Vote 74. Voted against an amendment to provide for the enforcement of existing gun laws in lieu of new burdensome gun control mandates.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]May 16, 2000. Vote 100. Voted to commend the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]May 17, 2000. Vote 104. Voted for an amendment commending the participants of the so-called “Million Mom March” for their demand for more Federal restrictions on firearms ownership, and to urge the passage of strict gun control measures.

I'm kinda wondering where this is all leading to. I got sick of the NRA's constant badgering for money every month, so I let my enrollment lapse. But now, I'm believe it's time to get back to what the NRA used to stand for. It certainly wasn't backing anti-gunners like Reid. Who's next, Feinstein or Schumer? They have certainly slipped down from the days of Charlton Heston. TJ

Gentleman, we passed the turn for the surreal a couple of years ago. We are now in uncharted territory. It is time to formulate a chain of command and control, gather intelligence on our situation, and formulate a plan to get from where we are to where we need to be. While I am also talking about this Fall's election cycle, I am also talking about much more. The world we knew a few years ago no longer exists, and we need to adjust to meet the current sitrep.

Two weeks ago, I told you about the carveout the NRA received in exchange for their support for the DISCLOSE ACT deal.

Then this week, RedState broke the story of the “gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board on the Kagan nomination.

Now, I’m getting credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, even though the NRA is finally saying it will score a vote on Kagan — something that was not a sure thing.

Click to expand...

carveout the NRA received in exchange - Did not happen that way. The exemption was unsolicitated and not negotiated by NRA-ILA.

“gag order” the NRA issued to members of its Board - Not a 'gag." These emails/communications are issued on every item NRA-ILA is considering taking action on. "Don't go running off on your own, because we need to do a united, cohesive effort. Let's charge as a brigade, not a bunch of individuals."

credible reports that the NRA is leaning toward endorsing Harry Reid, Rumor, reported by one with a history of NRA bashing and dividing.

Today's note from NRA (the horse.)

Friday, July 02, 2010

We are rapidly approaching the time when NRA’s Political Action Committee the NRA Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) will begin issuing endorsements in elections across the country.

As always in an election year, we receive many calls and e-mails inquiring about our endorsement policy in general, and specific races in particular. That trend has certainly held up this year, as we have received many inquiries about high profile races, such as the Nevada Senate race involving Senator Harry Reid. For the record, NRA-PVF has not yet announced any ratings or endorsements in this race.

With few exceptions, and for several reasons, we generally do not announce ratings or endorsements until closer to the elections. There are still votes to be graded and other information to be evaluated prior to issuing an accurate grade as Election Day nears.

As in every election year, some of these endorsements prompt questions concerning the criteria NRA-PVF uses in making these decisions. Following is a brief explanation of that policy.

The NRA-PVF is non-partisan in issuing its candidate grades and endorsements. We do not base our decisions on a candidate’s party affiliation, but rather on his or her record on Second Amendment issues. The NRA is a single-issue organization. The only issues on which we evaluate candidates seeking elected office are gun-related issues. While there are many issues a candidate must address with voters, and while voters evaluate a number of non-gun-related issues in factoring which candidate they will support or oppose, NRA-PVF’s sole criteria in issuing grades and endorsements is a candidate’s position on gun-related issues.

The NRA has a history of dong this. In Colorado the NRA handed out $ 10,000 to John Salazar(D) before they knew who would be running against him. He is the brother of Ken Salazar of the Gulf oil spill fame. In return for the NRA support, Salazar has been a lock step liberal, and no friend to guns.